My two cents: When a team moves, thats it.

[M's_Fan]

Why do the media and even knowledgeable baseball writers keep saying that the SF Giants haven't won a world series since 1954?

For the record: The SF Giants have NEVER, EVER, won a world series. The NEW YORK Giants won the world series in 1954.

Saying the SF Giants won the world series last in 1954, is like saying "the Texas Rangers last won the world series in 1924, when they beat the San Francisco Giants. The Texas Rangers should retire Walter Johnson's number for his storied career and gutsy relief performance in game 7 of that game. Boy, what a great rematch this 2010 world series will be!"

(The Washington Senators' only world series victory came in 1924 over McGraw's NY Giants. The Senators relocated to Minneapolis in 1960, and then to Texas in 1971).

In my mind, it is just as ridiculous to say that the Rangers won a world series in 1924 as it is to say this Giants franchise won it in 1954. Its just as dumb for San Francisco to retire McGraw and Matty's jersey as it is for Texas to retire Walter's. When you move, you close the book, period. Its a new franchise.

I'll be happy for either of these teams to win the world series, and consider it either team's first. My two cents.



This is NOT a picture of the last Texas Rangers World Series.

[dstudeba]

Interesting point. The Browns and Ravens situation in Cleveland/Baltimore is even more complicated. Whose history is it, or is it just that - history?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by dstudeba

Interesting point. The Browns and Ravens situation in Cleveland/Baltimore is even more complicated. Whose history is it, or is it just that - history?

Actually, that one is not complicated at all - as I recall, the city of Cleveland sued Art Modell when he moved the team in order to retain the rights of the team name and it's history.

[David W]

Well, you kinda got it right.

The original Senators moved to Minnesota after the 60 season and became the Twins for the 61 season.

The expansion Senators started in 61, and moved to Texas after the 71 season and played in 72 as the Texas Rangers.

So actually, this current version of the old Senators has not played in a World Series.

A Twins/Giants scenario would be what you are talking about.

[scooter729]

Well, the Rangers aren't descendants of THAT Senators team. The 1901-1960 Senators moved to Minnesota in 1961, and a NEW Washington Senators expansion team joined in 1961. THAT Senators team moved to Texas in 1972.

So this Rangers team isn't the same team as the Washington one that won in 1924. But the Twins should be able to make that claim.

[scooter729]

You beat me to the punch while I was typing, David!

[tbob]

I think it's not only sad but idiotic that the Twins don't recognize their heritage and honor Walter Johnson, Bucky Harris, Ed Delehanty, Heinie Manush, Goose Goslin, etc. They think the Twins just came on the scene in 1961 like Athena sprouting from the forehead of Zeus instead of recognizing the tradition and long suffering Washington Senators.

[Section103]

I just dont see it that way. I can see how you would if you lived in either of the two cities, but to pretend there is no continuity between the two is silly in my book. My wife runs her own business and changed offices this very past weekend. Its the same business, she didnt start a new one. She just changed locations. Granted, nobody's paying $30 a ticket to watch her be an insurance agent, but.... Organizations face different phases of life, just like families. You're still the same family if you move from NY to SF; you're still the same organization.

[bmarlowe1]

The Giants move to SF, whether an unfortunate event or not, does not change the fact that they have been a year to year continuously operating NL franchise since 1883. When they moved to SF they did not drop all their NY players and start anew. Matty did play for that franchise. Koufax is considered to have played for only one team - right?

I think the above cases are pretty clear. There are some that are more complicated, such as the Bal AL "move" to NY in 1903, or the 1899 "replacement" of most of the 1898 STL NL players with those of the 1898 Cle NL franchise.

[barrysloate]

M's Fan- how would you feel about the 1955 Brooklyn Dodgers and the 1959 Los Angeles team? Because they each won championships only four years apart, many of the same players were on both teams. Wouldn't that be enough of an historical connection?

[Anthony S.]

I like that the Giants ownership embraces their New York roots. I agree that saying the San Francisco Giants haven't won a series since 1954 is silly. The Giants haven't won it since 1954, the San Francisco Giants have never won it (though I'm currently in negotiations with God to change that).

[uffda51]

Sure, Athena sprouted from the head of Zeus, but that was long after Zeus changed his name (originally Bob Sacamano) and left Long Island for Greece.

[ChiSoxFan]

Originally Posted by M's_Fan

... should retire Walter Johnson's number for his storied career ...

Actually, Walter Johnson does not have a "number" to retire. Numbers on all baseball uniforms didn't happen until 1932 (5 years after Johnson retired).

The following is from the Baseball Almanac Web Site (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/uniforms.shtml):

NUMBERS AND NAMES

The first attempt to identify individual players with numbers affixed to their uniforms occurred with the Cleveland club in 1916. In this early experiment, the numbers were attached to the sleeve, not the back. For reasons unknown, the idea faded away and was not seen again (except briefly by the Cardinals in 1923) until 1929 when the New York Yankees (possibly inspired by earlier trials in the Minor Leagues) boldly took the field with large numbers on their backs, an idea that initially did not escape ridicule. Since teams and batting orders were relatively stable and not likely to change (especially the infamous "murderers row”), the first number sets reflected their position in the batting order — hence, Ruth #3, Gehrig #4, etc. Obviously, if the numbering system were to presevere, this system was eventually incompatible with roster changes in ensuing seasons. In any case, the new system met approval by the fans and this time it was here to stay. By 1932, all major league teams were “numbered”. In 1952, the Brooklyn Dodgers repeated the numbers on the FRONT of their home jersey and many other teams soon copied this idea. The sixties saw numbers appearing on the sleeves and by the seventies, even the trousers could not escape number identification by some clubs.

Another feature which was probably inspired by increasing TV coverage, was the display of the player’s last name on the back of the uniform. The Chicago White Sox were the pioneers of this idea in 1960. Acceptance was not instantaneous, partly because of the fear of lost revenues from lower scorecard sales, but the fans liked it and almost every team today has adopted the practice. The most notable holdout being the traditionbound New York Yankees (ironically, the same Yankees who introduced numbers on the back in 1929).

ChiSoxFan

[D. Bergin]

I learned something new doing some Football research a few weeks ago regarding franchise histories.

The Baltimore Colts originated in the old AAFC (All-American Football Conference) in the late 1940's, led by a young QB named Y.A. Tittle. In 1950 several of the AAFC teams were absorbed by the NFL, including the Colts.

The Colts folded at the end of it's first season in the NFL. The team was disbanded, Y.A. Tittle went and played for the 49'ers.

A few years later a completely new Baltimore Colts franchise was born in the NFL.

I think my biggest shock was discovering about how little I had known about the AAFC, which played just as big a part in the formation of the present NFL, as the AFL would, a couple decades later.

[PowderedH2O]

Actually, the Twins DO recognize the old Senators. If you look at the Minnesota Twins website and look at the all-time leaders you will see that they list Sam Rice as the all-time hits leader and Walter Johnson as the all-time wins leader, even though neither of these gentlemen ever played a game in Minneapolis. I know a number of Baltimore Colts fans that are just sick when they see Johnny Unitas' number retired in Lucas Oil Field in Indianapolis, a city in which he never played.

[triwak]

Great topic, M's fan! (Even though you were confused about the Senators' two DIFFERENT franchises). I am a Cardinals fan and have never had this question answered to my satisfaction: Why do the St. Louis Cardinals trace their origins back to ONLY 1892 - the year they joined the NL? I am almost certain, that this was the same franchise that played for 10 years in the American Association during the 1880's, and in fact won 4 straight pennants, under player/mananger Charlie Comiskey. So what if the team changed leagues? Do the current Milwaukee Brewers ignore all their years spent in the AL? Surely not. The 4 additional pennants is significant. The Cardinals could (and should) rightfully claim 21 instead of 17. Actually, I've read one source that says the original St. Louis team that joined the NL in 1876, is in fact the same franchise that later joined the AA, but was forced to leave the NL after the 1877 season, for financial reasons. They barnstormed for a few years before joining the AA. I've always wondered how other teams that played in the AA, handle their histories if they later joined the NL?

[dstudeba]

Originally Posted by Matt

Actually, that one is not complicated at all - as I recall, the city of Cleveland sued Art Modell when he moved the team in order to retain the rights of the team name and it's history.

One could argue the lawsuit also makes it complicated.

[chaddurbin]

i see M's pov but don't agree with it. i'm a big dodgers fan and do consider brooklyn part of their history...having gone to prewar i'd stretch it even further to the bill dahlens and zach wheats and the superbas (super bas? superb as?...???)

[Rickyy]

Nope I still consider NY and SF Giants as the same.

[tbob]

Powder, I wasn't aware of that, still they don't really connect back to the Senators. This year all year long we had to listen to the 50 greatest Twins of all time and see such dynamic players as Michael Cuddyer instead of Goose Goslin, Brad Radke instead of Walter Johnson etc. I guess if they had called themselves the Minneapolis Senators there might not be this problem.
Yes, I get the 50 year anniversary thing and the new stadium etc. but they should have a huge pictoral banner or at least a statue of The Big Train somewhere at the stadium.

[kcohen]

I've always been curious as to why the Orioles never acknowledge nor recognize any aspect of their St. Louis Browns origins.

[Orioles1954]

I am a die-hard Orioles fan and could give two craps less about the St. Louis Browns. Different town, colors and name.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by triwak

Great topic, M's fan! (Even though you were confused about the Senators' two DIFFERENT franchises). I am a Cardinals fan and have never had this question answered to my satisfaction: Why do the St. Louis Cardinals trace their origins back to ONLY 1892 - the year they joined the NL? I am almost certain, that this was the same franchise that played for 10 years in the American Association during the 1880's, and in fact won 4 straight pennants, under player/mananger Charlie Comiskey. So what if the team changed leagues? Do the current Milwaukee Brewers ignore all their years spent in the AL? Surely not. The 4 additional pennants is significant. The Cardinals could (and should) rightfully claim 21 instead of 17. Actually, I've read one source that says the original St. Louis team that joined the NL in 1876, is in fact the same franchise that later joined the AA, but was forced to leave the NL after the 1877 season, for financial reasons. They barnstormed for a few years before joining the AA. I've always wondered how other teams that played in the AA, handle their histories if they later joined the NL?

Not only pennants, but they could include the 1886 World's Series win. One issue, though, is what happened when the club changed owners and nearly all their players in 1899 (mentioned above).

[Gary Dunaier]

Originally Posted by Anthony S.

I like that the Giants ownership embraces their New York roots.

If memory serves me right, NY Giants players whose numbers were retired, who played before players actually had numbers, have a big "NY" on the wall under their name in lieu of a number.

[TexasLeaguer]

There really is no right answer to this question because it is what it is. If you are a fan of one team and don't want to acknowledge its past from another city/incarnation then don't. It doesn't change the fact that certain parts of an organization did move from one place to another. It reminds me of the age old Ship of Theseus paradox. It really is a question of identity and ultimately semantics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

[FrankWakefield]

I agree with what tBob said back there.... but I do believe that the Twins are the way they are as they ignore heritage and tradition, I'd expect that after what I saw in 1987.

[jimm]

I became a Giants fan since they are my hometown team. A Giants fan, not just an SF Giants fan! You think Monte Irvin doesn't feel ties to the organization because he didn't play here, his number is on the wall, he was here for the game the other day, I think he'd disagree.

[Abravefan11]

When an sports team simply relocates from one town to the next they should carry with them the history. It's not as if they're starting something new but rather continuing an existing product in a new location. Thus the franchise records and player contributions should carry over and be recognized as the same franchise even if under a new name.

[nolemmings]

When an sports team simply relocates from one town to the next they should carry with them the history. It's not as if they're starting something new but rather continuing an existing product in a new location. Thus the franchise records and player contributions should carry over and be recognized as the same franchise even if under a new name.

I can't agree with that completely, or at least I don't consider it an absolute. The Twins appear to be unique in at least some respects. Their very first year of existence the city they left also had a new team, using the SAME NAME as the one that just left. So who's entitled to the legacy, the city whose local fans have gone to the park for years to root for a team of that name or the fans in the new town with a new team name? I imagine there would have been bad blood if the Twins had scheduled old-timers games those first few years using old Senators players. I suspect that Calvin Griffith sought to avoid such snubs and/or allow DC to keep its own perceived heritage.

It also appears that the Senators had retired no numbers by the time they moved to MSP, so there were none to come over in the move. [BTW--how many Philadelphia A's are honored in Oakland?]Also, keep in mind that the Twins owner was the adopted son of HOFer Clark Griffith. If the owner chooses not to honor his own father and his contemporaries with plaques and commemorative activities, it would seem to have been a deliberate choice of ownership to separate the two franchises, and you can hardly blame the region for not embracing this "heritage". Now that so many decades have passed since the move and DC has had another franchise installed, it's almost rather weak for the Twins to go back and embrace their "past" with much zeal. Recognize the records, fine, and even periodically acknowledge the connection, but I see little reason to get all nostalgic at this point.

[Bilko G]

Originally Posted by Rickyy

Nope I still consider NY and SF Giants as the same.

so do i because they are

[PowderedH2O]

If it were up to me, the stats would be frozen with the old city, like they were with the Browns. For example, I live in Raleigh, NC and follow the Carolina Hurricanes. They were the Hartford/New England Whalers for many years before they came to NC. The record books all show our leaders as the combined leaders of Hurricanes and Whalers. But I didn't care about the team when they were in Hartford and neither did anyone else here. And I am sure that the Whalers fans in Hartford do not actively follow the Hurricanes leaders (except maybe to root against them). I'd just as soon just see our all-time leaders as being our guys from Carolina and the Hartford Whalers can just be that. Did the San Francisco fans follow Mel Ott? Did Oakland fans follow Connie Mack and Jimmie Foxx? Nope. Let the stats stay where they are. Just my opinion.

Sam